Climategate – still the issue

This week marks the one year anniversary of the release of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that we now know as Climategate.

Sitting here now, one year later, it’s becoming difficult to remember the importance of that release of information, or even what information was actually released. Many were only introduced to the scandal through commentary in the blogosphere and many more came to know about it only weeks later, after the establishment media had a chance to assess the damage and fine tune the spin that would help allay their audience’s concern that something important had just happened. Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.

Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.

Few have read the 2005 email from Climategate ringleader and CRU head Phil Jones to John Christy where he states “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.” Or where he concludes: “As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

Or the email where he broke the law by asking Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to delete a series of emails related to a Freedom of Information request he had just received.

Or the email where he wrote: “If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Or the other emails where these men of science say they will re-define the peer review process itself in order to keep differing view points out of the scientific literature, or where they discuss ousting a suspected skeptic out of his editorial position in a key scientific journal, or where they fret about how to hide the divergence in temperature proxy records from observed temperatures, or where they openly discuss the complete lack of warming over the last decade or any of the thousands of other emails and documents exposing a laundry list of gross scientific and academic abuses.

Of course, the alarmists continue to argue—as they have ever since they first began to acknowledge the scandal—that climategate is insignificant. Without addressing any of the issues or specific emails, they simply point to the “independent investigations” that they say have vindicated the climategate scientists.

…

Regardless of what one thinks of the veracity or independence of these so-called investigations into the climategate scandal itself, what has followed has been a catastrophic meltdown of the supposedly united front of scientific opinion that manmade CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming.

In late November of 2009, just days after the initial release of the climategate emails, the University of East Anglia was in the hotseat again. The CRU was forced to admit they had thrown away most of the raw data that their global temperature calculations were based upon, meaning their work was not reproducible by any outside scientists.

Nice synopsis. Not complete in any manner, but nice enough that these acts and correspondence lead to questions that still haven’t been asked. I’m not sure they ever will be. But they are there for all the world to see.

Is a year to the day that i followed a link from a forum, to a place that I had never heard of: Watts Up
After looking at Harry_Read_me.txt, I went from lukewarm to sceptic.
As for Rules of the Game, Futerra have been very busy…http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking
Rules of the Game
Words That Sell
Branding Biodiversity
Sell the Sizzle – The New Climate Message
New Rules, New Message…
They focus grouped ‘carbon foorprint’ years ago..
I wonder if they had a hand in ‘Global Climate disruption’
Well the co founder Ed Gillspie of Futerra also writes for The Guardian…http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ed-gillespiehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/17/climate-change-advertising-standards-authority
“Futerra and The UK Department for Environment published the Rules of the Game on 7 March 2005. The game is communicating climate change; the Rules will help us win it. The document was created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy.”
Also, ED Gillspie is part of a group ( a director) called Sandbag, promoting Carbon Offsets (and selling tonnes of CO2) They are campaigning for carbon emmisions trading, and the set up of EU emmisions tradinghttp://www.sandbag.org.uk/whoweare
A co director – of Sand Bag, is Mike Mason – co founder of Climate Care. (and still MD). This is where Prince Charles and Al Gore can by their carbon offsets, for all their airmiles, and cars, and expensive homes.http://www.jpmorganclimatecare.com/about/our-organisation/
Climate Care being bought by JP MORGAN CHASE Bank in 2008 (no doubt as a nice earner, post causing a financial crash)
Mike Mason, on the losing side of that Oxford Climate debate, where all he could do was abuse Lord Monckton…Ed Gillspie, is also a commissionar for the London Sustainability Commision.
What a small incestuous vested interest world, ‘the climate change’ industry is

Do they have a whistle blower statute in UK? If not, maybe that is why the whistle blower did not come forward. Or he/she may, even so, fear for her safety—after all, some warm-earthers have called for murder of skeptics. The AGW crowd has become like a herd of cornered rats, and therefore dangerous and unpredictable.
It had to be an inside job—even with a cabal like the warm-earth cult—there is always a small percentage of those with a conscience, or cannot take the dishonor any more.

Very well put Anthony. There was no hack. This was a whistle blower release. And the reason it is not being pursued as a crime is that Britain has extremely tough laws dealing with the rights of whistle blowers. So much so that an institution or individual that wishes to punish or silence a whistle blower will suffer extreme financial penalties. Further ,exposure would only aggravate the damage by revealing the releasing party was aware of a hoax.

There are so many references to Travesty in their emails that i’ve have come to the conclusion that they must be some kind of a heretofore unknown secret society of… ‘Travestites’ . This underground network beholds to their self-debunked Pseudo Science but knowingly dress it up anyway and present it!! Alluring until closer inspection!

When I read ” the climate science community would come down hard on me”, I read “Michael Mann would come down hard on me “. I suspect that Briffa was sick of the bullying and pressure to change his results to show a desired outcome. I also suspect (as Jones has alluded to) that there is a LOT more e-mails that would be incredibly damning to these guys. Let us get all this crap out in the open and deal with it, so that climate science can start moving forward again. Ironic that they accuse the skeptics of “delaying climate science”, when in fact it was derailed by an agenda. The silence from the investigators is deafening.

Climategate is very frustrating to me. There were some bad things done, but there was more incompetence. That the two sides cannot agree on the issues of Climategate is a pretty good indicator of how bad the issue has drifted from science.
Not that science has ever been as pure as wind driven snow. Some people try, but assumptions always creep into results. 100 years ago there were just as many contentious issues as there are today. Personality has always played a role.
There is no doubt that there are serious problems that were shown by Climategate, but lets also admit that we are not really surprised by some of what was found. Yes they want to be proven right, most scientists do. Yes the choices they made in data went in the direction they wanted it too.
The real problems of deleting things and being incompetent are things that are over the line. Discarding 30 years of tree ring data is also a nasty bit.
In the end reality will end the debate. Odds are very good that the skeptics will be proven correct. That is what really matters.
theinconvenientskeptic.com

Paul “the Menace” Dennis has denied “whistleblowing” Climategate. But some authoritative and knowledgeable insider self-evidently did collate and then clandestinely distribute these extraordinarily incriminating files. Lacking character and integrity, exposed as a complicit fraud, der grosse Herr Professor Jones is off the hook. That leaves Keith Briffa, who has never actually denied the charge.
Like Watergate’s Deep Throat revelator in 1973 – ’74, it may take thirty years to know the facts. But we suspect that, somehow, truth will out. As climate hysteria fades to a bad joke, recusant Warmists will emerge to take credit for their own demise.

Odd that no one has mentioned it, but back in the Sixties, the term “sandbag” meant to decieve through misdirection. As in “blind-siding” or “sucker-punching” someone.
Are these guys just clueless, a Freudian slip, or are they really that cynical? L

” Very few have actually bothered to read the emails and documents for themselves.”
Oh, I’d say all of the regular readers of WUWT, the exceptions being those that passed to the Great Beyond that week, read most of the e-mails and documents. You just couldn’t help it.
What was even better was the influx of new visitors to WUWT who showed up only because of Climategate. I’ve certainly appreciated reading the comments of those WUWT ‘newbies’ that have stayed stuck around to become regular contributors. That was one heck of a month for Anthony and The Mods (doop-do, do-waaah!).
P.S. I’m still a relative newbie having only started to visit regularly around the time “How Not To Measure Temperature – #50(ish)” was posted. There s still a passel of people who got hooked very early on and are still here; no surprise to me.

Hi Anthony,
Thank you for your wonderful blog and relentless effort in unmasking these cheats.
I can remember reading the emails and was struck but the obvious lack of corporate governance. In one email the auther stated that he can fund a trip from some funds left-over from another grant. Now, to my mind, that is not the way we were allowed to operate when I was still working. An approved budget was only allowed to be used for the scope and business described in the budget item.
Is budget abuse so common in journalistic circles that none of them mentioned this obvious miss use of funds?

It is becoming clearer every day that studies of past and current global temperatures are deeply flawed. Yet we are still asked to accept that the planet is warming and further, that that will be harmful to us, other life forms in general and our children. On the back of that acceptance are imposed two burdens; the first that we restrict access to energy and the second, that we accept a higher price for the energy that we are allowed.
The first is promoted by green organisations and the second by financial organisations. The two however, are not linked. The Greens call only for reduced consumption and the Traders/Taxers only for a slice of turnover. The two have no common ground, other than ambition and the realisation that rising global temperatures present them a huge opportunity to further that.
There is however, a third group emerging which combines both those burdens in the name of Global Governance. For that ambition to succeed, it is necessary to have a global threat and a global revenue stream. For them, the demonising of CO2 and invention of carbon trade, both by others, is a perfect storm on which to move.
We have had years to understand Greens & Capitalists, many of us are a bit of both if we are honest with ourselves. We have no experience of Global Government (outside of novels) but we do have experience of unelected government which continually shows examples of stupidity, brutality, largesse and hegemony.
I believe the whistle-blower of CRU served a very important role in the history of mankind. For now anonymous, so the only reward we can bestow is to continue vigilance against the manipulation of fact to serve an agenda.

What we need is a catchy little phrase, like “Duty! Honor! Science!”. You know, something to inspire the kids who are wandering around now and waiting for their turn at the wheel. Hummm… “Duty! Honor! Science!” What do you think? Too old fashioned? Not hip enough?

L says: November 20, 2010 at 9:16 am
Odd that no one has mentioned it, but back in the Sixties, the term “sandbag” meant to decieve through misdirection. As in “blind-siding” or “sucker-punching” someone.
Are these guys just clueless, a Freudian slip, or are they really that cynical? L
———————————————————————————-
I noticed that too and concluded that it was intentional. Cynical ? -maybe. Descriptive of their motive? – Definitely.
Douglas

I have just posted this over at climate sight where Kate has an article up on this subject. Mosh has just posted a comment there as well.
Kate”
I agree with True Sceptic.I have tried to move back on topic several times but people then keep referring, out of context, to something I’ve said. So back to your topic.
Firstly, congratulations. I thought it was a very nicely written and succinct paper. I don’t agree with most of your conclusions though.
I am British so the CRU emails are of particular interest to me. Having met Prof Jones I have enormous personal sympathy for him and what this matter has done to his health. Anyone issuing death threats or harassing him should be prosecuted.
On a professional basis I have rather less sympathy. He came to believe that the data he worked on with public money was his own and refused to allow anyone to see it, which precipitated the FOIA requests (cites follow)
We tend to have two types of inquiries over here. The first veers towards the intensive and thorough ten year inquiry we had into ‘Bloody Sunday’ which cost 100 million pounds. The second type- and much more frequent- will be familiar to any readers here who watch that old British TV series ‘Yes Minister’.
In that series politicians, or the civil service, try to thwart the aims of the opposite side who want to get to the bottom of something by agreeing to hold an inquiry. The intention is for nothing to be actually done. It is called kicking the ball into the long grass.
This is particularly popular at awkward times like before an election or where some flaw in Govt policy might come to light and is usually achieved by having terms of reference that don’t allow proper investigation or by appointing chairmen who are sympathetic to what the desired end result is.
The British enquiries you mention fell into many of these categories-one of the inquiries interviewed those involved for 1 day in total. (cites follow)
A number of investigations have been carried out into the official inquiries that you are quoting in your article. This is a good one as it deals with all of the British ones plus that from Penn State.
This sets the scene.http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/1532-damning-new-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries.html
This is the report itselfhttp://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
(the author gained a degree in Chemistry then became a Chartered accountant which explains his forensic mind).
Here are some of the opening remarks of this ‘inquiry into the inquiries’ as made by Lord Turnbull;
(Andrew Turnbull was in the British Govt for some years, first as Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; then as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords.
(Turnbull being a former head of the civil service is especially pertinent as he knows how these enquiries are intended to work)
* these enquiries were hurried
* the terms of reference were unclear
• insufficient care was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure
balance and independence
• insufficient care was taken to ensure the process was independent of those being investigated, eg the Royal Society allowed CRU to suggest the papers it should read
• Sir Muir Russell failed to attend the session with the CRU’s Director Professor
Jones and only four of fourteen members of the Science and Technology Select Committee attended the crucial final meeting to sign off their report.
• record keeping was poor.
The following comments come from early on in the linked report;
” *The Climate Change Emails Review headed by Sir Muir Russell included several vocal supporters of the manmade global warming hypothesis.
*One member had worked at UEA for 18 years.
*Only CRU scientists were interviewed and no oral evidence was taken from critics.
* The panel failed even to ask witnesses whether emails had been deleted.
* The panel simply said they had not seen any evidence that information subject to FOI had been deleted, despite strong evidence to the contrary.”
The allegations were not properly or meaningfully investigated but equally-because of that- they remain neither proven or unproven. In classic ‘Yes Minister’ style the ball has been kicked into the long grass and whether it will ever be found again remains to be seen.
Personally I feel that CRU have not lived up to the expectations created by its first director Hubert Lamb. If anyone wants to get a proper well balanced view of our changing climate in a historic context I can recommend his book ‘Climate history and the modern world.’
I have no particular comment on Penn state as I do not have sufficient knowledge of how that inquiry was conducted.
tonyb

Hi bubbagyro
They do have whistleblower legislation. It’s called the Public Information Disclosure Act. However, disclosures are only protected if referred to the appropriate government department and are not protected if disclosed to the media. Possibly it would be the Environment Ministry in this case. However, as you know, the government and civil service in the UK and especially the Environment Ministry are so overwhelmingly warmist biased there would be no hope of a whistleblower being protected in these circumstances.

Very good video.
Cancun will be the last collective attempt to force global legislation upon us.
After that they will adopt to regional and national policies to achieve similar goals and launch another scare but remember this: THEY WILL NEVER GIVE UP
Therefore fact finding and bringing out the truth, resistance to any scheme or taxation will be of utmost importance and so is the quest for finding a way to prosecute them.
And with them I mean scientist and politicians. This is about our freedom which makes this fight inevitable.
No surrender.

John Blake says:
November 20, 2010 at 9:06 am
Paul “the Menace” Dennis has denied “whistleblowing” Climategate. But some authoritative and knowledgeable insider self-evidently did collate and then clandestinely distribute these extraordinarily incriminating files. Lacking character and integrity, exposed as a complicit fraud, der grosse Herr Professor Jones is off the hook. That leaves Keith Briffa, who has never actually denied the charge.
Like Watergate’s Deep Throat revelator in 1973 – ’74, it may take thirty years to know the facts. But we suspect that, somehow, truth will out. As climate hysteria fades to a bad joke, recusant Warmists will emerge to take credit for their own demise.

—————
John Blake,
Your well-stated long range view on when we might know the story of the email release has merit.
If an internal UAE/CRU person ultimately (in the remote future) takes or is given responsibility . . . . then the current modus operandi of the UEA/CRU (and their associates internationally) should remain essentially unchanged until that time. That appears to be the case in the past year. Then it is also true that the critical media (mostly blogs like CA/WUWT/many others) need to keep the spotlight on the issues revealed in the emails . . . . which appears to be happily continuing : )
The variable in the near term is another release of additional emails, if any, taken at the same time last year but which (if they exist) are being held in reserve by the original releaser.
Maybe I read way to many mystery/thriller novels, but there is a whisper thought in my mind, is the UEA/CRU with the aid of the UK police setting up a sting for when (if) the releaser does another release? Will the supposedly soon press release by the UK authorities on their investigation be phrased to entice an additional release in an effort to trap the releaser? Far-fetched idea? Probably so. However, it has some probability of being correct given that if any additional emails were taken last November then the UEA/CRU and UK police must know that they are helpless to prevent them from coming out eventually; so they have nothing to lose by baiting the releaser to do an addition release in order to catch him/her.

Robb WillerUC Berkeley social psychologist and coauthor of a study to be published in the January issue of the journal Psychological Science:
Despite the mounting evidence, a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year found that 48 percent of Americans believe that global warming concerns are exaggerated, and 19 percent think global warming will never happen. In 1997, 31 percent of those who were asked the same question in a Gallup poll felt the claims were overstated.
—————————————————————————–
Despite the mounting evidence! Despite the mounting evidence!!
The students probably had healthy BS detectors – which is more that what Robb Willer seemed to possess.
But I am more concerned about the use of psychology as demonstrated by Futerra in the UK http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking which is redolent of Dr. Goebbels’ technique. These things are truly sinister and demonstrate a cynical approach to manipulating people’s minds. To me these techniques border on criminal behaviour especially where they are misleading or blatantly untruthful.
Douglas

There are so many references to Travesty in their emails that i’ve have come to the conclusion that they must be some kind of a heretofore unknown secret society of… ‘Travestites’ . This underground network beholds to their self-debunked Pseudo Science but knowingly dress it up anyway and present it!! Alluring until closer inspection!

There are only three references, but they show up multiple time dues to quoting:
tux:mail> grep -i travesty *
1148577381.txt:>> Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn’t being
1148592899.txt: Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn’t being shown in the SPM.
1255352257.txt: travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
1255496484.txt:warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
1255496484.txt:> and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the
1255523796.txt: we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
1255523796.txt: and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
1255523796.txt: travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
1255530325.txt: we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
1255530325.txt: and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
1255530325.txt: travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
1255532032.txt: we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
1255532032.txt: and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
1255532032.txt: travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
1255550975.txt:> travesty!
1255550975.txt:>> warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
1255550975.txt:>>> moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
1255553034.txt:>>>>> of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I
1255553034.txt:>>>>>> the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
1255558867.txt:> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I
1255558867.txt:> > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data1148577381.txt, from Michael Man, around 2006 May 25:
>> Also, I think it is an absolute travesty that figure 6.10 isn’t being
>> shown in the SPM. I think that is unforgiveable, and there should be
>> an effort to over-ride that decision (I would suspect that is Susan
>> Solomon’s doing?),1255352257.txt, from Kevin Trenberth on 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 [largeish excerpt & reformatted for readability]
Cc: Stephen H Schneider, Myles Allen, peter stott, “Philip D. Jones”, Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas R Karl, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.1255523796.txt, from Kevin Trenberth on Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, in response to a Tom Wigley comment of the above:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
KevinAlluring until closer inspection!
And closer inspection shows there is really only one significant use of the term. A very important one, but I suggest you look elsewhere (like the Cc: list) in your search for secret societies.

OK, I don’t read SA, I voted in that poll, I found a link to the poll through probably this blog, or some other skeptic blog – like undoubtedly the majority of those who participated in that poll. But you already knew that. Promoting that SA poll as an indication of anything is just the kind of BS which gives skeptics a bad name.

All,
Sorry for the double entry of text within my post of:
John Whitman says:
November 20, 2010 at 10:09 am
I think I will stop posting for a while and go have lunch . . . . duh.
John
[Double posed fixed. ~dbs]

Sandbag and its founder Bryony Worthington are deeply tied into the whole carbon trading fiasco. She was an Eng. Lit. student and Sandbags’ staff and directors barely have a true scientific qualification between them. Their career biogs make interesting reading, beginning as outsiders and now residing in the very heart of the establishment. It’s all about power in the end and truth, as ever, is the victim. Console yourself with this thought as the years roll out. History will deal with them most unkindly.

Jack Savage says:
November 20, 2010 at 8:59 am
Following the orthodoxy still has it’s rewards.http://www.sandbag.org.uk/blog/2010/nov/19/sandbag-founder-appointed-house-lords/
—————————
oh for goodness sake, she is also a board member of the 10:10 Campaign.
Probably thought the 10:10 ‘no pressure’ video was hysteriacally funny
“First on her agenda will be the energy market reform planned by the coalition government, “unfinished business” from the Climate Change Act which she was instrumental in writing, such as setting stronger carbon caps in the UK, and how to boost investment in green projects.”
“While at SSE, she was seconded to government to take part in writing the climate change bill, which is now law and binds the UK to cutting its carbon emissions. ”
Will noboby spare us these people in the UK?
That Climate Change Bill – 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050.

Sandbag – campaigning for carbon trading, etc
Also has Mike Mason on board..
Founder of Climate Care (carbon offsets)
Now owned by JP Morgan Chase bank..
So a nice vested interest, mates in the lords, to push through climate legislation, to enable carbon trading..
Ed Gillspie also, Sandbag – Co founder of Futerra, pr/green media company since 2001, advicing UN and UK on ‘selling Climate Change, and how to communicate climate change.
Ed Gillspie – Guardian newspaper environment consultant editor, Guardian used push climate change to the masses..
Are there NO Investigative reporters left in the world?!!!
It is almost too easy.

Along with John Blake (9:06), I think Ken Briffa is the most likely visible candidate as the “whistle blower.” There he was, shambling along, minding his own business, in his dendro studies and suddenly, his work is being touted as exhibit A for global warming and Mann’s hockey stick.
Responsibly enough, he pointed out that the late 20th Century results of his research didn’t support the conclusions and- it was published anyway. If I were he, I’d be PO’ed enough to start tearing down the curtains too. If so, he has performed a truly great service for humankind and should take credit for having done so. L

Bryony Worthington, Sandbag’s founder, has been appointed as a Labour peer in the UK Parliament’s House of Lords, recognising over a decade of work for effective action on climate change.
I forgot, as she is also a 10:10 Board member…
she can get Duncan Clark – 10:10 Strategy Director to push thins along a bit as well..
Duncan Clark can also get the Guardian to push ‘climate change ‘ in the Guardian, where he also works.
!

Bryony has some good connections..
Now in the House of Lords to help push the ‘Climate Change Act’ she helped create.
“she was seconded to government to take part in writing the climate change bill, which is now law and binds the UK to cutting its carbon emissions. The idea of national carbon budgets, now in law, was hers”
Damian Carrington, writes a nice cozy peice about her in the Guardain.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/19/labour-peer-bryony-worthington
Damian is the Environment Editor for the Guardian:http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/damiancarrington?page=2
Damian also splsahed the 10:10 ‘No Pressure’ video as a ‘sccop’http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film
That must have been a hard scoop to get, as:
Duncan Clark – Guardian Enivironment
Duncan Clark – 10:10 Strategy Director –
Bryony Worthington 10:10 board member
Bryony Worthington Sandbag Board member
Ed Gilspie – Sandbag director, carboon trading emmision lobby group
Ed Gillspie – Guardian environment
Ed Gillspie – Futerra climate change green pr – co-founder
Mike Mason – Sandbag
Mike Mason – JPMorgan Chase (bank) Climate Care (carbon offsets)
A nice little group who over a decade or more, have moved in their own little green circle, helped create the UK Climate Change Act, with a mindest that allowed the ‘no Pressure’ video to be made, without anybody thinking that it was a bad idea.
A nice bit of green groupthink, fingers in Mainstream Media, Climate change PR advicing the UN Environment Program, lobby groups, campaign groups and business, and that is just 4 people.
Pullitzer for an investigative reporter going spare?

I downloaded and retained the whole of the leaked CRU documents two days after the news broke. I’ve read and re-read them since then. I have also copied them to DVDs and have given copies to my friends, both AGW believers and sceptics alike.
Many are the seeds of doubt this course of action has sown in the minds of hitherto avid believers, causing them to question further the basic tenets of their belief system. Scepticism then finds fertile soil in which to flourish.
I do not have to lecture nor harass continually as the AGWers do, I let the believers find out for themselves. The results are always so much more positive when the believer “converts” him- or herself.
The leaked e-mails emanating from the heart of the AGW “priesthood” have done more to destroy their carefully crafted belief system than any number of external “attacks” could possibly have been.

I don’t think that many people actually paid attention to this.
Their bigger problem is trying to convince the average Joe the plumber that
glorified weathermen can predict the future weather, and that 1 degree warmer,
in their kids and grand kids lifetime maybe, is a catastrophe.
Most people would say “one degree, bring it on”……………

Climategate has had a tremendous impact in Canada. The very liberal CBC here in Canada has been a cheerleader in the CAGW cause along with CBC’s David Suzuki. Yet this weeks CBC political affairs program virtually does not mention our un-elected Senates killing of this ridiculous bill, before Climategate this action would have resulted in the MSM CBC bombarding us with this topic !http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/ CBC weekly Political affairs program (barely a mention of the Senate killing the AGW bill)

Odd that no one has mentioned it, but back in the Sixties, the term “sandbag” meant to decieve through misdirection. As in “blind-siding” or “sucker-punching” someone.

Many of these peer reviewed articles, promoting the theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming” have professional looking citations. There are thousands of articles by somebody et al. It is humanly impossible to begin to cover a fraction of them. Every time I’ve chased these musical “et al.s“; I find somebody et al. cited somebody else et al. who cited somebody who made an assumption about something they could not possibly know and had no physical reason as to why it should be so. (i.e. 100 year half life for co2 persistence in the atmosphere)
I find links that go nowhere, IR absorption spectra that tells me nothing, a lack of historical data and criticisms of those who question AGW that completely miss the point of what these people are saying. It is this deliberate miss direction that makes me so completely dismissive of some of there claims. It takes hours just to follow a couple of “et. als” and I don’t have that kind of time.

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
November 20, 2010 at 9:47 am
American politician Inhofe, 11/18/10:
Declares 2010 “Year of Vindication”. Also talks about the EPA Endangerment CO2 regulation which begins enforcement on January 2, 2011 without approval of Congress
—–
Thanks for posting, AAIM! I hadn’t seen this yet!
This was my favorite Climategate email targeting Sen. Inhofe (from M. Mann to Salinger, Jones et. al, 2003)It was on the night before before the notorious “James Inhofe”, Chair of the Senate “Environment and Public Works Committee” attempted to provide a public stage for Willie Soon and David Legates to peddle their garbage (the Soon & Baliunas junk of course, but also the usual myths about the satellite record, 1940s-1970s cooling, “co2 is good for us” and “but water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas!”).http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=348&s=tag526

R. de Haan says:
November 20, 2010 at 11:38 amMother Nature celebrates ClimateGate
I see Joe Bastardi is saying the models show 1 – 2 feet of snow for France and Germany next week. Like he said, awareness is being raised!!
;o)

Bryoney Worthington (see above)
has also written dozens of articles for the Guardian.http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/bryony-worthington
and is now in a position where she can lobby and VOTE for climate change legislation in the House of Lords, supporting her positions as board member of Sandbag – lobbying for carbon trading in europe, and 10:10 lCampaign lobbying for emmision cuts.
…

CRU emails the gift that keeps on giving, its a ticking bomb ,a growing cancer and slow decay, create your own metaphor. Remember it was govt that brought us the catastrophic climate BS and it built up over 20 plus years to the great balloon, in just 2-3 years it has imploded. That is light speed for govt action. The zombie climate bedwetters just don’t know that yet, but their moneyed masters do. The rewards for this deception and terror attack upon the paying public, reason and science are yet to come. I am all for ensuring the fools get what is coming to them. And I am pretty sure its not the reward they imagine is their due. We have given them enough rope, its time to snub em down and put the packsaddle on. What reward is fair for theft, treason and or stupidity? There is reason for the fear and hysteria emulating from the alarmist crowd as they project their insanity onto all others and they know how they planned to behave when they gained the power. In some ways it would be justice if we taxpayers where as stupid and vindictive as they imagine we will be, after all climate clown gulags in the high arctic and hug a polar bear TV would be fair by their playbook. That we will wean the worst of these over educated fools from the public teat, laugh at their past and future utterances and call that wave of human stupidity another historical fad and move on with our lives does not occur to the deluded ones, as they could not concieve of doing the same. Its typical of the type, that if we played by their rules they would not last a week world wide, but that never seems to occcur to those who call for punishment of the unbelievers. Hopefully the scientific method and the tools necessary to use it will be taught in schools again and AWG will be a lesson in the absurdity of claiming science for unreplicatible dogma. Of course the violence of the betrayed true believer has yet to be avoided some how, but the Al Gore types can afford to hire armies of private security so I feel thats somebody elses problem.

“The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file
rather than send to anyone.”
Does this comment by Phil Jones in 2005 refer to the “raw” station data? If so, doesn’t this show that the data still existed in 2005 and that their claim that it was “accidentally” lost years earlier when they moved is bogus? I find it interesting that these climate scientists claim not to have deleted anything, yet so much of the data and emails they threatened to delete have turned up missing. What’s even more interesting is that the Climategate investigators and the media seem to have absolutely no curiosity about such things. It’s like discovering a long gap on one of the Nixon tapes during the Watergate hearings and nobody cares.

Is Climategate really the issue?
Surely it is just the symptom of the disease, not the cause or the cure?
It may, in historical terms represent a turning point in the playing out of this particular human insanity but we can’t quite know that yet.
I suggest that the real issue is the politicisation of science.

I wrote down my chief suspect’s name and sealed it in an envelope about nine months ago after I had read Mosheer & Fuller’s book. It seems that I was not the only one to draw that conclusion……
All we need now is for our gallant detective to gather the CRU staff in the Common Room, with rozzers at the door to prevent rushed escapes. And to unmask the true hero …the one who had the honesty and cojones to let the world see how corrupted they had become.

I’m beginning to wonder if the Sandbag website is really a parody to test the credulity of the general public. It contains a link called ‘Destoy Carbon’ which implores people to buy tonnes of carbon by pouring money into a paypal account on the Sandbag website. Can this be real? Some days I feel like I’ve followed Alice through the looking glass!

I have to complement DJ Meredith on unearthing the ‘Rules of the Game’ – the game, in this case, being how to sell ‘climate change’ to the masses..
Insidious doesn’t come close. However, I had to chuckle at the quote on the back page, attributed to Mahatma Ghandi:
‘First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you; then you win.’
Yep – that’s us, folks…

In a recent interview Phil Jones admitted that not all the information had been made public.
It looks like the hacker/whistleblower has held onto some insurance.
Jones also said he is ‘not worried’ about the withheld information.
It looks like a deal has been done, the hacker/whistleblower won’t be revealed/prosecuted.

As the british police have the CRU back up server containing of all their emails, can this now be accecssed under FOIA? Surely it is public property as it was created on public fundings back and never has this info been more relevant. I’m very curious if access could be that simple, anyone familiar with process care to comment?

“Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, the electronic notes of a harried programmer trying to make sense of the CRU’s databases. They have never read for themselves how temperatures in the database were “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” or the “hundreds if not thousands of dummy stations” which somehow ended up in the database, or how the exasperated programmer resorts to expletives before admitting he made up key data on weather stations because it was impossible to tell what data was coming from what sources.”
And few understand that the data in question above is not relevant to global temperature records. Which is possibly the most important thing to understand, but surprisingly is scarcely mentioned.

Latimer Alder says:
November 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I wrote down my chief suspect’s name and sealed it in an envelope about nine months ago after I had read Mosheer & Fuller’s book. It seems that I was not the only one to draw that conclusion……
All we need now is for our gallant detective to gather the CRU staff in the Common Room, with rozzers at the door to prevent rushed escapes. And to unmask the true hero …the one who had the honesty and cojones to let the world see how corrupted they had become.

——————
Latimer Alder,
Are you a Hercule Poirot fan? The hero of many of Agatha Christie’s mystery books fame?
I love it.
John

UEA CRU were not “forced to admit” the disposal of the raw data. They had actually publicly stated this information as a matter of course on one of their data availability pages months before the email theft…unsurprisingly,really,because the raw data had been voided almost thirty years ago for space reasons. Journalist Jonathan Leake has hardly covered himself with glory in confecting that little story,and it’s sad that you repeat it. Meanwhile the raw data still exists with the national agencies that collect it. As you know.

And few understand that the data in question above is not relevant to global temperature records. Which is possibly the most important thing to understand, but surprisingly is scarcely mentioned.</blockquote
That an organisation charged with keeping the 'most important data in the world' had any such data at all on site is symptomatic of their incompetence.
If they had proper data retention and archiving procedures – which they clearly don't as Harry would not have been getting these problems if they had – these problems would not have arisen.
LA, IT Systems Manager.

Two questions.
All you people who know the reason the (CO2) trillion dollar a year carbon tax market was destroyed, please step to the front of the stage. It’s only a one word answer.
33% of the audience who knows the answer are in the front, please don’t answer the question just yet.
You know why you 66% in the back can’t answer this question? Because you are sheeple. You get your news from the TV that does social engineering or not at all.
Will one of you persons in the front give me the answer to my question?
Yes, that is correct, “Climategate.
It’s OK you people in the back didn’t know the answer, the people in the front are looking out for you.
My second question is, for what reason why only 33% of the people object to TSA invasive procedures?
I want the 66% of the people in the back to answer this question. It has something to do with constitutional rights. Which amendment is it?
The reason why you people in the back can’t answer the question is because you are sheeple.
The answer is the 4th amendment.
It’s OK you people in the back don’t know the answer, the informed people in the front got your back.
I here it only took 8% of the population of the 13 original Colonies to beat the British and win a great country for everyone here.

One year on and no sign of a prosecution for the heinous crime committed by the “hacker”.
That suggests one of 2 possible scenarios, either:
1. As mentioned above, the holding back of further – perhaps even more damaging – information has allowed the leaker to do a deal with the authorities, or
2. The authorities have no wish to bring anyone to court, as this will force open, highly public scrutiny of the content of the emails in a court of law, where lying carries significant penalties.
My money is on number 2, and I hope that the leaker is very careful when crossing the road…..

One year on and much has changed, heartfelt thanks to whoever released the emails.
A short poem to mark the occasion
Copenhagen…
The world awaits with baited breath
Talks a matter of life or death.
Can we avert a grisly fate
Or will the timing be just too late.
Politicians warn to heed their pleas
That we hold the warming to 2 degrees.
The ‘scientists’ have had their say,
The ‘hockey stick’ brought into play,
Run away warming the fate to behold,
The science is settled or so we are told.
Man made CO2 the culprit found
So must be taxed or puppies drowned
In the floods that will ensue
So say the ads we’re made to view.
But Mother Nature won’t be told
And in a winter freezing cold
Rising scepticism takes hold.
The Hadcrut Hacker’s had his way,
The mails have found the light of day
Or perhaps a Whistleblower found
The science now no longer sound.
Runaway warming not there to see!
(Was this not a travesty?)
Nor on the tree ring history
[‘Cept if a cherry-picked one lone tree!]
A trick was used to hide the decline
By those ‘scientists’ not quite so fine.
Alternate views must not be published
Or editors they would be punished.
And so their lies were all exposed
They who would not be opposed.
Inquries they came and went
Run by the Establishment
Evidence of wrongdoing they couldn’t find
Those three monkeys come to mind
Refused to look or wouldn’t tell
For their sins they’ll go to Hell
No matter since the truth we know
And one day soon our wrath will show!

Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller had it right in their book, Not an exact quote, but they said that global warming is a fact but not near as bad as the idiot “scientists” say it is and co2 plus many other things natural and man made contribute to it and we need to do something about it. They did not say bend over and..well you know. They did not say what to do . We can control many things that are man made-but we can not control politicans and tyrants that could help with this. So, we’re kinda stuck and probably will have to live or die with what happens. Nature at present cannot be controlled. I challenge anyone to dispute those facts.

Climategate exposed certain important “scientists” as climate thugs–enjoying the benefits of incestuous peer review, marginalizing dissenters, attempting to prevent publication of other viewpoints, fudging data (or preparing to), concealing graphic evidence of the falsification of dendroclimatology in IPCC reports, daydreaming of committing assault and battery on skeptics, conspiring to delete evidence of malfeasance, planning to thwart FOI requests… The list goes on and on, revealing that the emperor hasn’t a stitch on, just as we suspected all along.
The subsequent whitewashes didn’t vindicate these people, but compounded the evil. Not only is the emperor naked, he now pirouettes down the boulevard in flagrant sky-clad splendour. And the FMSM stands by, praising his taste in clothes.

“Following the orthodoxy still has it’s rewards.http://www.sandbag.org.uk/blog/2010/nov/19/sandbag-founder-appointed-house-lords/”
=======================================================
“Her earlier career was as an environmental campaigner, heading Friends of the Earth’s climate change campaign. She studied English literature […].”
In short, she is a professional propagandist.
English literature surely hasn’t taught her anything about science, let alone climate science – most probably she doesn’t even know what science is.

Are you a Hercule Poirot fan? The hero of many of Agatha Christie’s mystery books fame?

I can;t stand her books. She can’t write a character to save her life, and realistic dialogue has escaped her too. But when well adapted for TV/film, her plots are very watchable. And David Suchet portrays Poirot extremely well. So I watch these quite frequently.
Overall though , I prefer Andy Dalziel and John Rebus as my detective heroes. A little more complex characters than the vain Poirot. And Morse, partly because I was at Oxford a long time ago and still go back quite frequently. Any of those would have unmasked the whistleblower within a couple of hours.
For a change try the late Josephine Tey or Sarah Caudwell. The first could write superbly well and tells a good stiry, and the latter is just plain amusing..in an intellectually donnish way. We miss them both.

jorgekafkazar says:
November 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm
The subsequent whitewashes didn’t vindicate these people, but compounded the evil. Not only is the emperor naked, he now pirouettes down the boulevard in flagrant sky-clad splendour. And the FMSM stands by, praising his taste in clothes.

R. De Haan says
” THEY WILL NEVER GIVE UP ”
They will not give up even when the ice sheets start rolling in.
Somewhere here or there this morning I have read again about how Greenland
and the Antarctic are melting “Faster than we thought” and sea level is rising precipitously.
IS this true ? I can find no evidence supporting this claim but it continues to be repeated. In looking at photos from around the world and comparing them with older photos I see no sea level rise at all ( maybe in Venice). Where is it all going ?

For me it was the “Harry Readme” file (link in the main post) which rang so true. The poor folks who have to do the donkey work on a project like that are the ones who really know what goes on – it seems many of those running the project simply didn’t bother about data or model quality.

“Few have browsed the “Harry Read Me” file, ….”
And few understand that the data in question above is not relevant to global temperature records. Which is possibly the most important thing to understand, but surprisingly is scarcely mentioned.

So exactly what was so important about that data and code for Harry to spend months getting it under control? While I confess to not being quite sure what Harry was working with, I figured if that had such horrible data and metadata issues, any other global dataset would likely be as bad. If I were a cynic, I’d the data isn’t relevant to the record because it’s so bad it can’t be believed.
A couple things of context. The files Harry worked on “CRU TS2.1/3.0” started in and ended in directories like

READ ME for Harry’s work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!
1. Two main filesystems relevant to the work:
/cru/dpe1a/f014
/cru/tyn1/f014
Both systems copied in their entirety to /cru/cruts/
Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted ‘read me’ files addressing
individual issues, the most useful being:
fromdpe1a/data/stnmon/doc/oldmethod/f90_READ_ME.txt
fromdpe1a/code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt
fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/README_GRIDDING.txt
(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin ‘_’!)
2. After considerable searching, identified the latest database files for
tmean:
fromdpe1a/data/cruts/database/+norm/tmp.0311051552.dtb
fromdpe1a/data/cruts/database/+norm/tmp.0311051552.dts
(yes.. that is a directory beginning with ‘+’!)[… nearly 15,000 lines skipped, near the bottom:]
Wrote metacmp.for. It accepts a list of parameter databases (by default, latest.versions.dat) and compares headers when WMO codes match. If all WMO matches amongst the databases share common metadata (lat, lon, alt, name, country) then the successful header is written to a file. If, however, any one of the WMO matches fails on any metadata – even slightly! – the gaggle of disjointed headers is written to a second file. I know that leeway should be given, particularly with lats & lons, but as a first stab I just need to know how bad things are. Well, I got that:
crua6[/cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top] ./metacmp
METACMP – compare parameter database metadata
RESULTS:
Matched/unopposed: 2435
Clashed horribly: 4077
Ouch! Though actually, far, far better than expected. As for the disport of those 2435:
crua6[/cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top] grep ‘^1’ report.0909181759.metacmp.wmo | wc -l
1250
crua6[/cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top] grep ‘^2’ report.0909181759.metacmp.wmo | wc -l
279
[…]

The only reference to /cruts/ in the Emails is only a couple months before Climategate and refers to CRU TS version 3.0. (Email addresses and some non-HTML display codes edited out) :

tux:mail> cat 1252090220.txt
From: Ian Harris
To: t.osborn
Subject: Re: Hopefully fixed TMP
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:50:20 +0100
Hi Tim
I’ve re-run with the same database used for the previous 2006 run
(tmp.0705101334.dtb).
/cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top/gridded_finals/data/data.0909041051/
tmp/cru_ts_3_00.1901.2008.tmp.dat.nc.gz
Is that any better? If not please can you send the traditional multi-
page country plots for me to pore over?
Cheers
Harry
On 3 Sep 2009, at 17:04, Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Harry and Phil,
>
> the mean level of the “updated-to-2008” CRU TS 3.0 now looks good,
> matching closely with the 1961-1990 means of the earlier CRU TS 3.0
> and
> CRU TS 2.1.
>
> Please see the attached PDF of country mean time series, comparing
> last-year’s CRU TS 3.0 (black, up to 2005) with the most-recent CRU
> TS 3.0
> (pink, up to 2008).
>
> Latest version matches last-year’s version well for the most part, and
> where differences do occur I can’t say that the new version is any
> worse
> than last-year’s version (some may be better).
>
> One exception is the hot JJA in Europe in 2003. This is less
> extreme in
> the latest version. See attached PNG for a blow-up of France in JJA.
>
> I’m sure some people will use CRU TS 3.0 to look at 2003 in Europe,
> so we
> need to be happy with the version we release.
>
> Perhaps some hot stations have been dropped as outliers (more than 3
> standard deviations from the mean?)?
>
> But I’m not sure if that is the reason, since outlier checking was
> already
> used in last-year’s version, wasn’t it?
>
> Does the outlier checking always check +-3 SD from 61-90 mean (or
> normal),
> or does it check +-3 SD from the local mean (30-years centred on the
> value) which would allow for a gradual warming in both mean and
> outlier
> threshold?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, September 2, 2009 6:08 pm, Ian Harris wrote:
>> Tim
>>
>> When you have the time and/or the inclination, please can you run the
>> new TMP output through your IDL thingummajig?
>>
>> /cru/cruts/version_3_0/update_top/gridded_finals/data/data.
>> 0909021348/
>> tmp/cru_ts_3_00.1901.2008.tmp.dat.nc.gz
>>
>> Please let me know if you can’t access it. I do appreciate your help!
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Harry
>
> —
> Dr. Tim Osborn
> RCUK Academic Fellow
> Climatic Research Unit
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Ian “Harry” Harris
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom

If you’re going to make a cryptic claim, please back it up with something that can be discussed and please include references. Otherwise you look like an anonymous troll trying to spread confusion instead of understanding.

Derecho64 says: November 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Can anyone tell me how the science has been impacted by the emails? Have the major indicators been altered, or changed sign?
CO2 remains a greenhouse gas. Its concentration continues to rise. Satellite data confirm it continues to absorb energy in the spectra range it always has. 2010 is another very hot year. Glaciers continue to lose mass etc. The “major indicators” have not altered or changed sign (unless you include public perception in the list).

At some point Climategate is going to be ancient news and you guys will have to come up with something new.
I don’t know, I’m going with the NAS which reiterated the basics of AGW post Climategate. Common sense tells you that tree rings are a small part of the evidence for AGW yet there is this irrational fixation with it.

“”””” Cliff says:
November 21, 2010 at 5:20 pm
At some point Climategate is going to be ancient news and you guys will have to come up with something new.
I don’t know, I’m going with the NAS which reiterated the basics of AGW post Climategate. Common sense tells you that tree rings are a small part of the evidence for AGW yet there is this irrational fixation with it. “””””
“”””” I don’t know, I’m going with the NAS which reiterated the basics of AGW post Climategate. “””””
“”””” At some point > AGW Cliff < will have to come up with something new. """""
Way to go Cliff; Can you see anything that is interesting, with your head down in the sand like that ?
Well last week we got to hear some head honcho of the NAS tell us about his whizzbang high speed bomb design computer that can calculate rubbish faster than anybody else; and it isn't even smart enough to figure out that clouds are NOT a postitive feedback; but ARE a negative feedback.
That's a third grade science question on "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader". To whit:- "When a cloud passes in front of the sun; does it get hotter in the shadow zone; or does it get colder ? "

Well somehow ” > AGW < will be old news " got dropped out of that.
But as YOU said Cliff "I don't know. " So maybe it's time for you to try and learn. Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it; but stupidity has to be taught, and there are many willing to teach it.

“”””” Ammonite says:
November 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Derecho64 says: November 20, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Can anyone tell me how the science has been impacted by the emails? Have the major indicators been altered, or changed sign?
CO2 remains a greenhouse gas. Its concentration continues to rise. Satellite data confirm it continues to absorb energy in the spectra range it always has. 2010 is another very hot year. Glaciers continue to lose mass etc. The “major indicators” have not altered or changed sign (unless you include public perception in the list). “””””
And the NAS still admits that they don’t model clouds properly; so yes that hasn’t changed.
The NAS also probably believes that if you cut all four legs off a frog, and tell it to jump; it will not jump, because that makes them stone deaf !

Just a thought, but perhaps the Climategate whistle blower has kept quiet so that he can release the next round of emails just before the next global meeting in Cancun. The first set appeared just before Copenhagen, and what a huge effect that had. There’s nothing better to derail a conference than to precede it with controversy and cede it with doubt.
One should also not forget some of the real conspirators the warmists have on their side, and that’s the mainstream media such as the BBC and Guardian. The BBC are desperate to see the AGW side win through because a huge amount of their pension fund is tied up in green/renewable energy etc. projects and funds, and to have the AGW bandwagon collapse will cause a huge hole in it. I can imagine that’s why there was such a top-down effort to drive the green agenda in all their reporting. The Biblical phrase does come to mind however of “you reap what you sow”.

Ric Werme says: (November 28, 2010 at 9:19 am) in the thread “Despite hellish summer, Russia says “nyet” to AGW” — to Mike Restin’s comment: (November 27, 2010 at 9:37 pm) I still don’t understand why the “harryreadme.txt” file is being ignored.
Ric responds with: Well, you’re certainly wrong to bring this up given the title of this post has nothing to do with Climategate.
Must disagree, Ric. This thread is now old. The question Mike, and I, bring up in the new thread is of something which puzzles us.
Some things need bringing to the fore again, and this is one of them.

Guess I could have, too, Ric… maybe should have; so I am guilty on that count. “Harry” and his ways still appear critical to me, if only as an example of the confusion (being gentle) which seems to have seeped right through the East Anglia CRU and others who espouse AGW through tainted models.
“Harry” said he was winging it, so if his results did not skew the record that has to be either luck, or that what he was doing was not all that vital, anyway.
I just feel there is an important story there, and because I do not have the skill to write it, then I would like to read it.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy